M240 Color Test ... Oh, oh!

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm not "considering" the A7R, I already pre-paid for one. As a Sony SLT A99 shooter it was a no-brainer extension of my current system ... that happens to also take a few favorite M lenses. Which, upon reflection, is probably all I really need since most of my Rangefinder work is B&W with the M Monochrome. I'm sort of a luddite when it comes to rangefinder photography ... much preferring B&W to color.

 

The only A7R color samples I've paid attention to are those posted on the Get Dpi forum that were shot by people whom I know. Subjectively, I disagree with you regarding the color ... which again, is a matter of taste. Obviously, the A7R will be simpatico with my A99, and act as a back-up camera.

 

I also had a chance to personally use the A7R when a friend brought one by the studio for a few hours. Shot with a M50/0.95 at minimum distance in very low light using a much improved focus peaking with the subject quite off center. Nailed it. Nailed every M75/2AA shot also.

 

It is NOT a rangefinder and is not intended to replace one ... but I can plop it into my M Monochrome bag for the occasional color shot. It is actually smaller than a M. I've already affectionately nick-named it "Mighty Mouse."

 

- Marc

 

Hi Marc,

how duo like the color of the A7r?

 

Personally I am much more comfortable with the new M than I was at the beginning. I even went so far and rebought a M9P just to find out that the differences between the new M and the M9p are much less visible than I felt/remembered. My impression...if we read enough about a problem we start believing that there is a problem.

I don't doubt there is a certain difference between the M9 and new M in color, but it is by far smaller than one would expect when reading some posts.

 

For a Leica S-user (which means limited high ISO with lenses not faster than f2.5) I find the new M makes more sense than the M9, because it really extends the low light capabilities.

 

I believe small technical image differences are overcooked in some discussions these days, and handling aspects are underrated often.

[Alberti]

This has been pointed out here before. Here is the Leica FAQ from their website discussed awhile ago:

 

5. Do I have to use a UV/IR filter on the new M? How infrared sensitive is the new M?

 

All image sensors for Leica M cameras are designed and constructed to provide the best possible image quality with Leica M lenses. One prerequisite for this is the use of an extremely thin infrared filter on the image sensor to ensure a full corner-to-corner rendition of details. The consequence of this thin filter is that infrared light is not completely absorbed. This may result in slight color variations in certain lighting situations. This can be particularly critical when photographing dark-colored textiles in incandescent light. The infrared sensitivity of the M8 is so high that we strongly recommend the use of a UV/IR filter. The infrared sensitivity of the M9 and M (Typ 240) cameras is approximately 5% of that of the M8; these cameras can therefore be used without an IR cut filter.
 Nevertheless, when shooting critical subjects, it cannot be completely ruled out that corrections in post processing may be necessary.

 

One way to solve this infrared sensitivity issue further without increasing the thickness of the IR-cut layer could be to apply "electronic subtraction".

• Electronic subtraction can be accomplished fairly easily by taking one cell in a pixel and coating it with and IR-pass filter layer and subsequently assessing the output and subtracting that from the appropriate other cells (red ones I suspect).
  
• Taking out one cell and using it for another purpose would change the balance and would increase the noise in one of the channels though.
  

Remapping and recalculating is 'easy' in CMOS - just like Fuji allegedly developed their own new APS-C 16 MP sensor mapping on a standard SONY sensor.

 

I assume this could be made to work like a charm.

 

I expect to lay my hands on a M within a short time. This thread really prepares me and reduces my expectations (which might be good).

As an M8 user I find a lot of situations nicer without IR-filter (giving a natural feeling) even at a cost of bad fabric rendering that I see anyway in other camera's like some Canon's all the time.

But I don't like candy-store colors like some reported initially for the M.

[mjh]

One way to solve this infrared sensitivity issue further without increasing the thickness of the IR-cut layer could be to apply "electronic subtraction".

Indeed one could and there are sensors designed along these lines under development as we speak; still I don’t think this solution would be truly desirable. You generally try to avoid subtracting signals as it increases noise (whereas addition reduces noise).

[Etruscello]

Does the use of an IR Cut Filter on wide angle lenses on the M240 solve the color problem or just change the character of the color bias? It seems to me that such a filter will add cyan bias in the corners of images from wide angle lenses. Remember, the M8 had firmware to correct the cyan corners bias. I believe neither the M9 nor the M240 has such firmware correction. Am I right about this? I've tried an IR Cut filter on a 28mm lens on the M240 and see cyan bias in the corners. Is there a menu item in the M240 to activate cyan corner bias correction? I don't see any. In my experience with the M240 (and M9), IR Cut filters work very well only on lenses with focal lengths equal to or greater than 50mm. Tom

[jaapv]

35 mm, depending on design. However it is far easier to do a flat field correction for cyan vignetting than it is to try and correct IR contaminated photographs.

[genefama]

I used an IR filter for a while and then got rid of it. To my eyes it didn't fix anything and I thought it was costing me some sharpness. M240 files tend to glow reddish and yellowish and this seems to be a color-balance thing rather than a white-balance thing. At first I hated it, especially compared to the cooler colors of the M9, but maybe I've grown used to it because now the files strike me as having a certain brilliance that makes a Canon SLR feel kind of flat and sedate by comparison, depending on the lens.

 

I might be alone but the last firmware update also seems to have helped with the colors. Everybody says nothing changed but I think it's different. (But then, I also got my 35mm FLE cleaned and checked by Leica and it came back a terrific lens that I've been shooting predominantly, after years of avoiding it, so maybe that plays a role in this perception.)

 

Anyway, I'm much happier with the colors than I was. If you're new to the camera it might pay to stick it out and work with the image character it delivers rather than fight it. But if you really want to fight it, the profiles in the VSCO Film 2 pack will do more to calm the color casts down than an LR filter will. They also have a one-click preset that fixes the ruddy skin tones. I've mostly stopped using those too, though. I guess I've grown to like the look of the files as they are. Good luck.

[indergaard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Getting accurate colors from the M240 is easy: Datacolor SpyderCHECKR - The Smarter Color Reference and Gray Card - Datacolor Imaging Solutions

[jaapv]

Crikey! That is nearly double the price of the Xrite colour checker!

[elmars]

The SpderCheckr24 is cheaper, about 50 €.

 

SpyderCHECKR 24 - Datacolor Imaging Solutions - Datacolor Imaging Solutions

 

SpyderCheckr and X-rite work different. X-rite creates camera profile Lightroom, SpyderCheckr creates development presets for the HSL-module. Both in Lightroom.

 

Elmar

[mirekti]

I tried with with the color checker, and it works fine for the colors on the patch. However, I found I again needed manual tweeking to get it somehow acceptable. As if the algorithm is not quite precise. As soon as the color hue differs from those on the checker some of them start to look bad.

[jaapv]

The SpderCheckr24 is cheaper, about 50 €.

 

SpyderCHECKR 24 - Datacolor Imaging Solutions - Datacolor Imaging Solutions

 

SpyderCheckr and X-rite work different. X-rite creates camera profile Lightroom, SpyderCheckr creates development presets for the HSL-module. Both in Lightroom.

 

Elmar

 

Not interested in LR. I use PS CC and profile in ACR.

[jaapv]

I tried with with the color checker, and it works fine for the colors on the patch. However, I found I again needed manual tweeking to get it somehow acceptable. As if the algorithm is not quite precise. As soon as the color hue differs from those on the checker some of them start to look bad.

 

You should do a dual illuminant profile with controlled light. I use bright sunlight at noon and halogens indoors. Or do a profile per shoot.

Exact colour is usually not the most esthetically pleasing, though. Our eyes, brain and memory work totally different from a camera.

[elmars]

Not interested in LR. I use PS CC and profile in ACR.

 

 

Photoshop has the same ACR module as LR. So both, x-rite and SpyderChecker work with Photoshop too.

 

Elmar

[jaapv]

I am fully aware of that, thank you.

Remains that the first link returns 148 $.....

[elmars]

http://www.alles-foto.de/default.asp?UIDASP=2014082920160025216322061252&ARTNR=215137&UG=Spyder&Anzahl=12&Anf=11&Ende=20&SON=5&UE=0,0,0&MENPRO=&ES=0

[jaapv]

I think I'll stick with my Colorchecker, I quite like the XRite software.

[mirekti]

Our eyes, brain and memory work totally different from a camera.

 

Using a Bayer filter would tell the opposite unless I missed some other variable.

Anyhow, I should have watched this video first before I started to complain about magenta reds in M240

The camera just helps to pop up my imagination a bit ;-)

[Peter Branch]

You should do a dual illuminant profile with controlled light. I use bright sunlight at noon and halogens indoors. Or do a profile per shoot.

Exact colour is usually not the most esthetically pleasing, though. Our eyes, brain and memory work totally different from a camera.

 

I have just acquired a Spyderchechr 24 and understand that I need to calibrate each of my 5 current lenses individually.

 

This leads me to ask, if that is so important, do I need to profile different ISO settings?

[elmars]

I have just acquired a Spyderchechr 24 and understand that I need to calibrate each of my 5 current lenses individually.

 

This leads me to ask, if that is so important, do I need to profile different ISO settings?

 

The lenses of the same producer have nearly the same color characteristic. So if You have only Leica lenses, You can use the same profile for all lenses. Zeiss lenses have a slightly other characteristic, bus to my experience it is sufficient enough to adjust the color temperature a bit.

 

Different profiles for different ISO settings are necessary, if the camera has color shift at higher ISO. The M9 shows this above 800 ISO.

 

Elmar

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[indergaard]

The lenses of the same producer have nearly the same color characteristic. So if You have only Leica lenses, You can use the same profile for all lenses. Zeiss lenses have a slightly other characteristic, bus to my experience it is sufficient enough to adjust the color temperature a bit.

 

Different profiles for different ISO settings are necessary, if the camera has color shift at higher ISO. The M9 shows this above 800 ISO.

 

Elmar

 

In regards to Leica lenses this is also my experience. I have calibrated a 50 Lux FLE, 50 Noctilux ASPH and 35 Lux FLE with the SpyderCheckr Pro, and the calibrated profiles are almost identical in regards to color adjustments.